Over the past 20 years electronics manufacturing companies have moved from a few highly vertical, fully integrated companies to a large number of specialized companies with modular value that depend on an outsourced business model. Offshore outsourcing of semiconductor manufacturing, operations and procurement decrease the visibility of the manufacturer into its own operations and distribution processes. As a result, the manufacturer loses control over important outsourced processes and information. This result of outsourcing has a direct negative impact on the ability of these companies to operate with maximum control and reduced risk.
Outsourcing reduces the ability of manufacturers to enforce the quality of their product in their customer's supply chain due to an increased risk of the presence of counterfeit components. The ability of a manufacturer to assure his customers the delivery of genuine products has become increasingly difficult. Counterfeit and recycled components can be inserted by the contract manufacturer at any point in the outsourcing interfaces unbeknownst to the original manufacturer. Counterfeit parts not only contribute to lost revenue but also to product returns, increased liability and brand erosion. Although less likely, counterfeiting can affect integrated device manufacturers (IDMs) as well as fabless houses.
The interdependencies introduced by outsourcing also contribute to the difficulty of manufacturers to optimally manage their supply chain, causing increased inventory liability and risk. Consistent on-time deliveries necessary to support a customer's just-in-time production strategies become compromised. Safety stock levels are increased to compensate for supply chain inefficiencies and as a result the amount of assets required to generate a given gross profit is increased. As the risks and losses continue to increase, the promised returns of outsourcing become less attractive.
FIG. 1 illustrates a possible scenario where an OEM engages a contract manufacturer to generate three types of devices or systems identified as 1, 2 and 3. Each of these devices implements a different set of features or capabilities. The contract manufacturer must manage inventory of each device type to fill OEM orders that may come in during, e.g. peak production periods. The IDM must maintain three separate product SKUs to provide the contract manufacturer with three distinct devices so the OEM can provide the end customer with product differentiation. The recurring capital costs of design development, mask sets, wafer fabrication, testing and packaging may be prohibitive when amortized over three IC devices. Moreover, considering the long manufacturing lead times and short product lifecycles, the recurring capital expense becomes more burdensome to the device manufacturer.
Maintaining the inventory of multiple device types results in risk to the device manufacturer. In one scenario, the device manufacturer may decide to carry multiple product SKUs to supply the OEM and increase the risk of overstocking a device. For example, in FIG. 1, the contract manufacturer may stock each device of type 1, 2 and 3. Over time, only device type 2 sells in the forecasted quantity. An overly optimistic volume forecast may result in the overstock of device types 1 and 3. The surplus devices may have to be written off or sold at a significant discount. In another scenario, the device manufacturer reduces the risk of optimistic volume forecasting by inserting additional time in the supply chain to manufacture each device type on an as-needed basis. Delaying the delivery of the devices may reduce the value of the finished goods, or cause the OEM to miss a market window.
There are also situations where devices are binned or categorized based on parameter testing. One example occurs when computer central processing unit (CPU) chips are differentiated based on their maximum clock frequency. Higher clock frequencies for CPUs result in increased processing capabilities. Therefore, the value of the CPU varies as some proportion of the maximum clock frequency. It is sometimes the case that the performance of an entire manufacturing lot can exceed the market volume requirements for the lower-performance variants of the devices. The device manufacturer can distribute the lower performance grade device and provide an authorised option to upgrade them by increasing the clock frequency of the device. The inability of the device manufacturer to securely authorise this upgrade deprives the device manufacturer of a revenue enforcement mechanism. Another potential loss of revenue to the device manufacturer arises due to warranty claims for parts in modified systems that have been upgraded to clock frequencies higher than the CPU device has been rated for. The result of this unauthorised upgrade is that the device operates out of specification and may be subsequently damaged due to thermal stress or operate unexpectedly due to a failure mode caused by a timing violation.
There are traditional methods of device specific feature provisioning based on wire bonding, laser fuses, and zero ohm resistors. These types of connections can be added or removed in the manufacturing process by contract manufacturers, during distribution by resellers, or after market by the end user. In these cases, the device manufacturer typically cannot enforce payment for the higher value, unsanctioned features. Also, these traditional provisioning techniques typically cannot occur outside of the manufacturing environment.
There is a need for a feature provisioning system that can handle the competing objectives of differentiating products whilst minimizing the effect of differentiation on inventory management, as well as to provide a vendor or other entity with secure control over the features that can be added to or enabled/disabled in a particular device, platform or system. Such a system that can also enable secure provisioning outside of just the manufacturing environment can also bring additional benefits to the IDM and/or the OEM.